Rorate Caeli

Some more information on yesterday's meeting


On this Wednesday's edition of Il Giornale, Andrea Tornielli confirms the words provided by Cardinal Medina on the content of the plenary meeting of the Ecclesia Dei commission, reported here yesterday, and adds some new information:

...

In the order of the day for the meeting was also a discussion on the juridical framework in which to place the Lefebvrists after their readmission into full communion with the Holy See.

The debated questions were, thus, two. ...

Benedict XVI intends to extend the indult of his predecessor, in fact withdrawing from the bishops discretionary power on the matter: the Missal of Saint Pius V is no longer abolished, and even if the ordinary Roman Rite is that originated from the post-conciliar liturgical reform, the old one -- used by centuries in the Church -- can subsist as an "extraordinary rite".

The bishops, therefore, will not be able to deny the ancient mass anymore, but only regulate its eventual celebration, together with the parish priests, harmonising it with the need of the community. The corrections included would have reduced from 50 to 30 the minimal number of faithful who ask for the celebration according to the old rite. As for the readmission of the Lefebvrists, once the rite of Saint Pius V is liberalized, the deal should be easier.

54 comments:

  1. This sounds far better than anyone had been hoping.

    It does NOT sound like a "Hegelian" ploy.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It may be that the eventual "juridical framework" would not leave the SSPX at the mercy of the local bishops. Since it sounds as if the Mass will be largely emancipated from the bishops, perhaps the SSPX would receive similar treatment.

    ReplyDelete
  4. What's with the minimum of 50/30 people requesting the Mass? Does that mean that a priest must have that number of signatures before he can celebrate? What about a private Mass? I thought this was about liberalization, not strictures!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Do not worry, Hibernalis. It is appropriate to wait for the actual text of the eventual document before reaching hasty conclusions.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hibernalis,

    From what has been said elsewhere it seems:

    Private Masses would be allowed for up to the number of people needed for a Public Mass. So I would not worry yet. I do agree that in end we just have to wait to see what the document says, but I feel pretty confident that the document will meet the requirement of the SSPX for liberalization. Keep praying.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous9:05 PM

    I think hsarsfield to be correct. Papa seems to clever not to have taken all of the "moving pieces" into consideration while planning this move out. I suspect that is why it has taken so long (relatively speaking). Getting this "right" takes both coordination and careful consideration.

    Vivat Iesus.

    ReplyDelete
  8. From what I can piece together so far, it appears that a priest may offer a private Tridentine mass without any involvement from the local bishop, if the numbers of laity do not exceed an arbitrary number, 30 or 50 has been mentioned.

    If at least 30 (or 50) laity request a public Tridentine Mass in a diocese, then the bishop must comply and provide it. This new indult does not appear to be asking for a wide and generous application. It appears to dictate it, from the evidence so far.

    That gives the bishop the ability to "regulate" to some limited extent.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This of course is only a step. It would be foolish for SSPX to accept being the high church wing of a Church divided into broad church reform of reform novus ordinarians and low church protestant uniates.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous9:20 PM

    Or the Society could take the view that they have much to offer a Pope who is working towards fixing many things. But taking one's ball home is always an option.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This is NOT entirely about the SSPX.

    I can't wait to see if lay Catholics who assist at SSPX masses will, in some way, go forth now into Novus Ordo parishes (infiltrate them, or salt them if you prefer), or will insist the local most Ordinary permit them to use a Church and preferably one in the heart of the diocese.

    Hint to SSPX: St. Joseph's, Raleigh Deanery, Diocese of Raleigh, affords a prime opportunity. Laity sympathetic (mostly), Mons. sympathetic (mostly), money already raised (mostly)for new building program, Church preserved (mostly) from the iconoclasts, and a new Bishop who was chosen by BXVI personally...

    But, mostly, I am getting way ahead of things.

    Quite fascinating stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  12. proklos,

    I tought the Society considered itself part of that Church. Are you saying that it is not part of the Church?

    **********

    I agree with Stu. The Pope is trying, and he will already face opposition from Ricard-like liberals.

    The least the Society can do is to offer something on its part to show that the Holy Father´s efforts aren´t worthless. At a point when the Holy Father will be under severe attack or sabotage by liberals, the Society would do well not to trouble him with additional criticism from the other front.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Prof. Antonio Basto said...

    At a point when the Holy Father will be under severe attack or sabotage by liberals, the Society would do well not to trouble him with additional criticism from the other front.

    *****

    Unfortunately, Bp. Williamson has already stated beforehand that anything the Pope does now is a "Hegelian" ploy to deceive, co-opt and destroy the SSPX.

    Bp. Fellay needs to either silence Bp. Williamson -- or admit that the SSPX has no intention whatsoever of rapproachment.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Surely, one needs to see an actual document before drawing premature conclusions. No one can start directing anything until there is an official document, signed & sealed, in the public domain. Comments about SSPX are out of bounds, since they will most certainly respond in the most appropriate manner, depending on how it is framed. The framing of such a document will be the test of its credibility.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I just pray that Benedict XVI does the "right" and "just" thing with the Tridentine Liturgy, independently of the SSPX situation. These two situations, although related do not go hand in hand. AMDG.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Informative posting, I did not know that there was a required minimum for petioning the Tridentine Mass. AMDG.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Quite. I was going to say something earlier, mildly intemperate as usual, but thought better of it. For one thing, the words "is no longer abrogated" worried me, but on second thought I realized that these were Torelli of Il Giornale's words reporting on the comments on the document, not those of the document itself. Let's just see what Christmas brings. Just think though, kids, there will surely be a Papal celebration in the offing to demonstrate the application of the document...wouldn't you think? Maybe we'll even get to open a present before Christmas!

    Christ-mas is com-ing,
    the doc-u-ment stands pat!
    Lets put the thing to bed and say
    "That's that!"...

    But I still counsel patience, even in the face of fast approaching Gaudete Sunday!

    ReplyDelete
  18. That last post was in response to Mack a couple of posts earlier, but I should have written,

    "...lets put the thing to WORK
    and say "That's That!""

    But I think you get the idea!

    ReplyDelete
  19. It is specious to say that something is no longer "abolished", because this would imply that the rite would have to be reintroduced, when in reality the rite has been in practice already. I think the most logical thing would be to declare that the rite was never abolished, nor that this was the intention neither of the II Vatican Council nor of Pope Paul VI, although the latter would be very hard to believe. AMDG.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Interesting that:

    - under 30 (or 50) people, no permission would be needed for a 'private' Mass.

    - over 30 (or 50) would need coordination with the bishop but he has to then allow it as the document (hopefully) will call for.

    Nice strategic planning!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Hebdomadary, I posted my last comment after reading your last posting. Obviously I agree with your incensed and I do join in prayer for an end to this sterile dispute about the Tridentine Liturgy. AMDG.

    ReplyDelete
  22. No word on the Lectionary and Calendar?

    ReplyDelete
  23. I still dunno about this.

    If they can't "deny," but still can "regulate" -- sorry, in this context, the ability to regulate means the ability to deny.

    The will of Mahony, Brown, Liebknecht et al. is to totally suppress Tradition. If they can find a way to do it under the new regulations, they will.

    The HF needs vigorously to denounce those Bishops who worked like Hercules to suppress the heartfelt desires of thousands for the Tridentine Mass. Preferably by name.

    ReplyDelete
  24. The long awaited future of Catholicism is almost here. The pews will continue to empty in the novus ordo masses but will fill in the tridentine rite masses.

    God has used the ugliness of the innovations in the novus ordo to acheive a return to reverence beauty and mystery in the mass. The youth have driven this change and will continue to do so.

    God Bless Pope Benedict!!

    ReplyDelete
  25. Did anyone notice the blurb on CWN about the Italian National Alliance Party heading a drive to get the bishops of Liguria to allow at least one Tridentine Mass per Sunday for the culturally assimilating benefit to immigrants?! That's just fantastic!! (Timing is pretty good too!) The hits just keep on comin'!

    ReplyDelete
  26. it keeps coming doesn't it... oh what a party it will be at my place!

    ReplyDelete
  27. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  28. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  29. If they can't "deny," but still can "regulate" -- sorry, in this context, the ability to regulate means the ability to deny.

    Very true. But consider the fact that even very strict regulations, etc., don't prevent bishops from doing more or less what they want. And even if a bishop must allow the TLM who knows what sort of priests he will assign to it or what sort of action he will take against priests who offer it in private.

    The MP is not a panacaea. But I think it will be an improvement.

    ReplyDelete
  30. dcs,

    precisely. The most wicked bishops may prefer schism to Tradition. But what this will do is create an opening for the faithful in dioceses with "moderate", wimp bishops -- who may currently ban the traditional Rite almost as much out of fear of being branded a "trad" among his brother bishops as from any personal hatred for Tradition -- to be able to worship rightly, with the good priests who are out there, without the Bishop really having to be complicit or involved. Right now, if a Bishop were to allow an indult, he may get disinvited to the nice reception at the next USCCB meeting; but if he can say, "ah, but the MP ties my hands!" then he can keep walking his broad path but not drag everyone in his diocese with him along it. So, for many, even if not for all, the situation will be much improved.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Lets wait and see what it says...don't give way now to skepticism! Just keep petitioning Our Lady. Remember that success is assured in the long run, look at how far we've come in the past twenty years. The only question is how much of a boost can we get from a present action. Be optimistic...it's CHRIS'MAS d***it!! (kidding!) But seriously, it's going out way. Large trees take time to begin to fall, and each chop makes only a small difference to the trunk. Trust me, one day we'll make the world's biggest Christmas tree out of this Giant Sequoia!!

    ReplyDelete
  32. Future news of the freeing of the old Latin Mass will mean a lot of curiosity in the secular news media about existing and soon-to-be-existing Latin Mass communities in various dioceses around the country.

    Traditional Catholics should plan to make the most of the situation when the news is finally released. Call your local newspapers and and make good quotable comments.

    If you do this, remember that the audience of local newspaper readers includes mostly Protestants and non-believers. Let them be intrigued by quotes from traditional Catholics pleased with the Papal decision--even if it is only a start directed to restoring the Church.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Future news of the freeing of the old Latin Mass will mean a lot of curiosity in the secular news media about existing and soon-to-be-existing Latin Mass communities in various dioceses around the country.

    Traditional Catholics should plan to make the most of the situation when the news is finally released. Call your local newspapers and and make good quotable comments.

    If you do this, remember that the audience of local newspaper readers includes mostly Protestants and non-believers. Let them be intrigued by quotes from traditional Catholics pleased with the Papal decision--even if it is only a start directed to restoring the Church.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Future news of the freeing of the old Latin Mass will mean a lot of curiosity in the secular news media about existing and soon-to-be-existing Latin Mass communities in various dioceses around the country.

    Traditional Catholics should plan to make the most of the situation when the news is finally released. Call your local newspapers and and make good quotable comments.

    If you do this, remember that the audience of local newspaper readers includes mostly Protestants and non-believers. Let them be intrigued by quotes from traditional Catholics pleased with the Papal decision--even if it is only a start directed to restoring the Church.

    ReplyDelete
  35. After giving this some thought, the 30-or-50 limit could be VERY good or VERY bad, depending on whether that limit is 30 per PARISH or 30 per DIOCESE. The former is very good, the latter is very bad.

    Let's use the Diocese of Orange, the home of Bp. Tod "No Neelin'" Brown, as an example.

    If it's only 30 per DIOCESE, Bp. No Neelin can say, "Hey, I'm already in compliance! I've already provided them a place for the TradMass. It's at a historic place, for heaven's sake! [the San Juan Capistrano mission -- FYI] Of course, it's hours away from most places, and it only seats 150 people when 800 want to attend -- but I'm in compliance!"

    However, if it's 30-50 per PARISH, it's a completely different story. If we're reading things right, the MP will COMPEL the bishop to allow the TLM at that parish. They can't be shunted off to a mission church hours away, or to a mausoleum chapel (which is the case in San Diego, as Gerald of "Closed Cafeteria" reports).

    Now let's say you get five parishes with 100 people each who demand their rights for the TLM at their parish. This will compel "No Neelin" to do one of three things:

    1. Regularize an SSPX priest for them.
    2. Bring in an FSSP or ICKSP priest for them.
    3. Train one of the local priests for them.

    None of which he wants to do, because No Neelin's goal is to suppress Tradition at all costs, MP or no-MP.

    Again, assuming that the MP will take this course, getting the TLM onto more and more parish schedules makes Tradition visible. Others -- who have only known the N.O. -- will have to notice it. And people will begin to realize the Haugen-Hassified N.O. Mass is liturgical crap! They will demand the beauty of the TLM.

    But it all hinges on whether the demand level is diocesan or parochial, as explained above.

    ReplyDelete
  36. After giving this some thought, the 30-or-50 limit could be VERY good or VERY bad, depending on whether that limit is 30 per PARISH or 30 per DIOCESE. The former is very good, the latter is very bad.

    Yes, it will be interesting to see how this might work out in practice. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Anonymous7:21 PM

    After giving this some thought, the 30-or-50 limit could be VERY good or VERY bad, depending on whether that limit is 30 per PARISH or 30 per DIOCESE. The former is very good, the latter is very bad.

    It will be VERY good regardless. No matter what there will be individuals who will try to hinder this movement. Let them try. Things might be moving slow from our perspective but this is but a large boulder beginning its fall down a steep hill. Momentum will prevail if only because of the finger that started it in motion.

    Vivat Iesus.

    Stu

    ReplyDelete
  38. Momentum will prevail if only because of the finger that started it in motion.

    Vivat Iesus.


    Amen!

    ReplyDelete
  39. "So, for many, even if not for all, the situation will be much improved."

    Why, don't those mean the same thing??

    :^)

    ReplyDelete
  40. "Catholic News Agency" finally broke the mainstream Catholic media blackout on the Ecclesia Dei meeting (two days later...):

    http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=8274

    ReplyDelete
  41. Do CWN and EWTN count as mainstream Catholic news media? This is from Tuesday (it’s now late Thursday where I live):

    http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=74204

    ReplyDelete
  42. "Do CWN and EWTN count as mainstream Catholic news media? This is from Tuesday (it’s now late Thursday where I live)”

    EWTN does not write its own news stories, it simply posts articles from CWN, CNA, ZENIT, and VIS. EWTN simply reposted the CWN report.

    With the exception of the conservative CWN, none of the other mainstream Catholic media outlets have touched this till a full TWO DAYS after the meeting.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Hi Kopp/AC!

    “EWTN does not write its own news stories, it simply posts articles from CWN, CNA, ZENIT, and VIS. EWTN simply reposted the CWN report.”

    Obviously. That’s why I gave the EWTN link but referred to both CWN and EWTN. It’s because EWTN has picked up the story from CWN, thereby spreading the story beyond CWN’s readership.

    As for CNA taking two days to report on the story, that sounds about right for CNA’s timeliness. They’re always slow to update their website with new stories.

    “CWN is the ONLY Catholic media outlet that reported on this up till this afternoon. With the exception of the conservative CWN, none of the other mainstream Catholic media outlets have touched this till a full TWO DAYS after the meeting.”

    Except for EWTN, that is. . . .

    ReplyDelete
  44. Sorry, I should have said, "Hi Kopp/Brian." Got a little confused in following the cross-posting of comments from Fr. Zuhlsdorf's weblog to here . . . .

    ReplyDelete
  45. News of the freeing of the old Latin Mass will mean a lot of curiosity in the secular news media about existing and soon-to-be-existing Latin Masses in various dioceses around the country.

    Traditional Catholics should plan to make the most of the opportunity for publicity when the news is finally released. Call your local newspapers and and make good quotable comments.

    Remember that the audience of local newspaper readers includes mostly Protestants and non-believers. Let them be intrigued by quotes from traditional Catholics pleased with the Papal decision.

    As for those dioceses where the Latin Mass is not yet offered, a traditional Catholic needs to speak up and present a face and name in the public media so that others who want the Latin Mass know whom to contact. Gotta find those 30 (50) people!

    ReplyDelete
  46. Poeta,

    I laughed out loud!

    ReplyDelete
  47. It might be worth remembering that nothing has actually happened yet, and that all speculation is for naught until the document is publshed. News reportage don't mean diddly! Not to rain on the parade or anything...but lets stay in the moment and keep our eyes on the ball!

    ReplyDelete
  48. As did I. See how the glorious sunshine of the Holy Father's penetrating intellect can raise the standard of discussion even in such lowly places as this, that now even we can see that two distinct words are not synonyms!

    ReplyDelete
  49. Jordan Potter said...
    "Sorry, I should have said, "Hi Kopp/Brian." Got a little confused in following the cross-posting of comments from Fr. Zuhlsdorf's weblog to here"

    LOL.

    --Brian Kopp

    ReplyDelete
  50. Question: Just looking at the VIS bulletin for today, which announces the papal celebrations, and I'm just wondering about the terminology. At most of the celebrations during Christmastide the Holy Father is "presiding" at mass, even in the Sistine. But at the Christmas Midnight Mass in the Vatican Basilica, it says the Holy Father "will celebrate mass". Is there anything "Tridentine" in that terminology as distinct from the rest of the seasonal celebrations? Would tht there were.

    ReplyDelete
  51. I think the restrictions in numbers (minimum of 30 faithful) are in themselves ridiculous. WHO will be these faithful? Must they be members of the given parish? Or may they also be from other parishes or dioceses? And what about a private Mass with attendance of 0 or up to 30? Are these forbidden too? Missae privatae are allowed already as far as I know.

    Clear words should follow, not instructions once again ignored by the modern bishops.

    And the wording "extraordinary" does not please me.

    The SSPX will need the Personal Prelature and Military Ordinariate possibilities provided and promised by Cardinal Oddi in 1991. Complete independence as a structure, but within the Latin Church of course (a sui juris Church like for the Greek Catholics or the Syro-Malankara Christians is impossible).

    ReplyDelete
  52. The SSPX considers itself part of the Roman Church fully, so it will not accept a set-aside status. And no low church things will be accepted by them. There must be in Rome the will to reinstate liturgical AND doctrinal Tradition and traditions. Nothing more.

    Do not forget that the excommunications also must be declared lifted or not applying by the Holy See, for effective regularisation of the canonical situation of the St Pius X Fraternity to take place. This will not happen before the so-called excommunication latae sententiae decree is declared lifted.

    And yes, doctrinal discussions and an agreeable formula must take place. The position of Bishop Williamson, that Rome forbids the new rite now directly as having been heretical or invalid and that Vatican II was full of heresies, will never be achieved. Pastoral, practical and actional problems and errors may be conceded under Benedict XVI, e.g. by Cardinal Stickler and others who are real Roman Catholic prelates. But Vatican II will not be sent into the eternal pit of fire as heretical. Possibly its effects and orientation will be said to have been a bit naive and its effects to have been negative after all. But nothing more...

    ReplyDelete
  53. The news is also in the Radio Vatican website, at least in the portuguese site: here.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Spinal Cyst, thank you for bringing this up. May God almighty clear the mind and will of Benedict XVI, to solve in a just and charitable way the problematic situation of the Tridentine Litury in the Catholic Church. AMDG.

    ReplyDelete

Comment boxes are debate forums for readers and contributors of RORATE CÆLI.

Please, DO NOT assume that RORATE CÆLI contributors or moderators necessarily agree with or otherwise endorse any particular comment just because they let it stand.

_______
NOTES

(1) This is our living room, in a deeply Catholic house, and you are our guest. Please, behave accordingly. Any comment may be blocked or deleted, at any time, whenever we perceive anything that is not up to our standards, not conducive to a healthy conversation or a healthy Catholic environment, or simply not to our liking.

(2) By clicking on the "publish your comment" button, please remain aware that you are choosing to make your comment public - that is, the comment box is not to be used for private and confidential correspondence with contributors and moderators.

(3) Any name/ pseudonym/ denomination may be freely used simply by choosing the third option, "Name/URL" (the URL box may be left empty), when posting your comment - therefore, there is no reason whatsoever to simply post as "Anonymous", making debate unnecessarily harder to follow. Any comment signed simply as "Anonymous" will be blocked.

Thank you!